Search Results for « Rating systems »

The market place of the design and construction of high performance buildings is dynamic and evolving.Professionals through out the building industry use assessment rating systems to evaluate and differentiate their product or design.GSA is a significant participant in the building industry and it is critical for GSA to evaluate the performance of projects.Since 2003, all GSA projects are to use and achieve a certified rating from the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Enviromental and Energy Design (LEED ® ) green building rating system.In order to keep pace with the evolving and developing rating systems available, Section 609 of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006 (PL109-115, signed November 30, 2005), states: "… the Administrator shall report to the relevant congressional committees of jurisdiction on the progress and next steps toward recognition of other credible sustainable building rating systems within the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) sustainable building procurement process."This summary document was prepared to offer information on sustainable building rating systems for GSA's consideration in their response to this request.This document does not provide a recommendation for GSA but rather a summary of the information found for each sustainable building rating system.GSA buildings are typically built for a 100 year life following stringent guidelines to enhance the asset value.GSA's Design Excellence program compels design teams to create the highest quality buildings.It is commonly recognized that a whole building, integrated design approach upholds a sustainable or green building design, which in turn provides the optimal performance for the desired design goals.Sustainable design tools used for GSA projects must set parameters to improve quality, decrease the life cycle environmental impact, and optimize life cycle costs of the buildings.The tools must support long-term performance for an innovative and flexible future.GSA must evaluate its buildings consistently using one system in order that the projects can be compared equally with other GSA buildings, other Federal buildings, and the U.S. building market.Using one sustainable building rating system allows for comparisons and benchmarking of existing buildings as well as a mechanism to track GSA's progress toward designing and operating the best buildings for their occupants.The information compiled in this document was collected from January 15 -May 1, 2006 through literature reviews and internet available information.Information was also provided directly from the rating system owners.Sustainable building rating systems evolve, therefore a time frame was used to create absolute boundaries.The rating systems change frequently to adjust to the market which makes capturing the current state behind the scenes a challenge.Although publicly available information and rating system provided information do not tell "the whole story", this is documentable information for the rating system selection process.Additionally, there are green building experts that can offer anecdotal information on their experience with these rating systems.This type of information was not solicited or included due to the challenge of ensuring a balanced and currently accurate review.Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………… ii I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………. 1 II.Sustainable Building Rating Systems…………………………………………..2 III.Screening Analysis of Rating Systems…………………………………………4 IV.GSA Drivers for Sustainable Design and Use of a Rating System…………….6V. Review Criteria for Applicable Rating Systems……………………………….8 VI.Rating System Summaries…………………………………………………….10 VII.Review of Applicable Rating Systems………………………………………..18 VIII.Summary………………………………………………………………………28 Appendix A References…………………………………………………………….31 Openness of Operations Transparency of Rating System Membership Numbers How much information is available publicly?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to report the five scales comprising the rating system that the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) devised (JSSF standard rating system) and the newly offered interpretations and criteria for determinations of each assessment item. METHODS: We produced the new scales for the JSSF standard system by modifying the clinical rating systems established by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS scales) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association's foot rating scale (JOA scale). We also provided interpretations of each assessment item and the criteria of determinations in the new standard system. RESULTS: We improved the ambiguous expressions and content in the conventional standard rating systems so they would be easily understood by Japanese people. The result was five scales in total. Four were designed for use specifically for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal, and lesser metatarsophalangeal-ineterphalangeal sites; and the fifth was for the foot and ankle with rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, we described interpretations and criteria for determinations with regard to evaluation items in each scale. CONCLUSIONS: Conventionally, the AOFAS scales or the JOA scale have been separately applied depending on the sites or disorders concerned, but it was often difficult to decide on scores during practical evaluations because of differing expressions in different languages and also because of ambiguity in the interpretation of each evaluation item and in scoring standards as well. JSSF improved these scales and added definite interpretations of evaluation items as well as criteria for the rating (to be reported here in part I). Because these steps were expected to improve the reliability of outcomes assessed by each scale, we examined the reliability in scores of the newly developed scales, which are reported in part II (in this issue).

The paper presents the comparative review of five prominent sustainable rating systems namely BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, GREEN STAR and HK-BEAM. The review process adopts a system of criteria which encompasses all features of sustainable rating tools. The main goal of the study is to consider all aspects of the systems in order to find out the best one(s). The study provides a deep insight into sustainable rating tools and can be a recommendation and reference for users when choosing between rating systems.

necessary to wait until that hypothetical day when "all research" pertinent to fire- danger rating was completed.2. Closely related to (1), the basic structure of the system would be designed so that new knowledge such as better prediction equations and improved fuel information could be incor- porated readily.Such refinements would take the form of updated computer programs or new tables supplied to the users; the basic format and definitions would remain un- changed.

Forest fire danger rating research in Canada was initiated by the federal government in 1925. Five different fire danger rating systems have been developed since that time, each with increasing universal applicability across Canada. The approach has been to build on previous danger rating systems in an evolutionary fashion and to use field experiments and empirical analysis extensively. The current system, the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS), has been under development by Forestry Canada since 1968. The first major subsystem of the CFFDRS, the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System, provides numerical ratings of relative fire potential based solely on weather observations, and has been in use throughout Canada since 1970. The second major subsystem, the Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction (FBP) System, accounts for variability in fire behavior among fuel types (predicting rate of spread, fuel consumption, and frontal fire intensity), was issued in interim form in 1984 with final production scheduled for 1990. A third major CFFDRS subsystem, the Canadian Forest Fire Occurrence Prediction (FOP) System, is currently being formulated. This paper briefly outlines the history and philosophy of fire danger rating research in Canada discussing in detail the structure of the current CFFDRS and its application and use by fire management agencies throughout Canada. Key words: fire danger, fire behavior, fire occurrence prediction, fuel moisture, fire danger rating system, fire management.

Forest fire danger rating research in Canada was initiated by the federal government in 1925. Five different fire danger rating systems have been developed since that time, each with increasing universal applicability across Canada. The approach has been to build on previous danger rating systems in an evolutionary fashion and to use field experiments and empirical analysis extensively. The current system, the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS), has been under development by Forestry Canada since 1968. The first major subsystem of the CFFDRS, the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System, provides numerical ratings of relative fire potential based solely on weather observations, and has been in use throughout Canada since 1970. The second major subsystem, the Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction (FBP) System, accounts for variability in fire behavior among fuel types (predicting rate of spread, fuel consumption, and frontal fire intensity), was issued in interim form in 1984 with final production scheduled for 1990. A third major CFFDRS subsystem, the Canadian Forest Fire Occurrence Prediction (FOP) System, is currectly being formulated. This paper briefly outline the history and philosophy of fire danger rating research in Canada discussing in detail the structure of the current CFFDRS and its application and use by fire management agencies throughout Canada. Key words: fire danger, fire behavior, fire occurrence prediction, fuel moisture, fire danger rating system, fire management.

davliprit savings timp ERC Ener^v Release Comnonent FFM finp fnpl rnniciturp llllC' 1UC1 lUUlu LUl CThe basic structure of the system (fig.1) provides three indexes designed to aid in plan- ning and supervising fire control activities on a fire protection unit.These indexes are derived from the three fire behavior components -Spread Component (SC), Energy Release Com- ponent (ERC), and Ignition Component (IC).Lin t i 1 Risk can be more objectively assessed, Burn- ing Index is recommended for this application.However, users should evaluate Risk and compute the 01 and FLI because it will provide experience and data for further Risk explorations.' If fuel moisture sticks are not used, see appendix II. 10 An adequate beam balance of 1,000 grams capacity can be purchased for under $40.11 A maximum-minimum thermometer of the "U" tube or dial type is adequate and can be purchased for under $15.